Well, after saying that I've wanted to try USDAA for at least the past year or two, I finally went and did it. Recent "changes" in NADAC land pushed me over the edge and I figured it was time. (note: Secret & Kaiser are both closing in on their first NATCH, so we will stick around to finish those, but who knows after that.)

I figured it would be a culture shock, so I put Secret in just Gamblers, Jumpers & Performance Speed Jumping. Kaiser got to run Standard in addition since I know he at least knows all of the equipment. Secret really hasn't seen teeters other than mine at home and I didn't know what she'd do.

I run Secret in 16" Skilled in NADAC, so going up to 22" in USDAA was obviously going to be a big change for her. She has never had a problem with jump heights at home, but has always stressed at trials, which is why I chose to drop her in NADAC. So that said, I thought she handled 22" very well at this trial!

Highlights were that she didn't freak out at the judge running around the ring with us in Gamblers (she has previously had issues with judges in the ring). She didn't seem bothered by the different contact equipment (ie: slats and higher a-frame). And she did her teeter in Gamblers! Yay!

We definitely came away with things we need to work on -- but none of it was news to me. I know I need to get her on different teeters on a more regular basis. I knew she had never seen a broad jump in her life prior to Saturday -- I was hoping she'd just, you know, go over it, but that was not the case. I was a little surprised at her backing out of the chute in Gamblers, so I suppose we need to find more of those, too.

It's a start! She did manage a Q and 2nd in P1 Jumpers at the end of the day, which unfortunately didn't get on video. She has always liked these styles of courses. The more I run with her and the more front crosses I can fit in the better.

I got her PSJ run on video -- where you can clearly see her telling me that she has never seen one of THOSE (the long jump) in her life. lol

Course maps and a full write up are in my blog link if you are into those things.

Oh, have you not heard? The uproar has died down on the list now -- probably because people like myself passed out from banging our heads against the wall.

First of all, did you hear about the VT (video tape) program that Sharon started up a while back? There was enough of a stir caused by that, but everyone was placated by the fact that the points were being kept separate. If you chose to go the VT route, you could earn VT titles (ie: EAC-VT). Hey, if it floats your boat.... I had no interest in it, but I suppose some people do.

Well, several weeks ago Sharon announced that the VT runs being submitted were "such high quality and so professional" that she saw no reason to keep the points or programs separate -- So effective immediately, all points from submitted VT runs were being COMBINED with the traditional program. So in other words, you could earn a freaking NATCH in your back yard.

Uhhh.... No thanks. Thanks for completely devaluing the entire awards program and making NADAC a huge joke.

Last summer there was a huge discussion about how one couldn't use video to dispute a call or result posted at a trial -- but now we are trusting video alone to award Q's with no judge present? And we are on the "honor system" to trust that people are not running the course 20 times before submitting the video of the one clean run they managed out of all those attempts? Whatever. It is not the same. My dogs can Q every flipping time when running in my back yard. What is the challenge in that?

I heard bits and bobs of the video kerfuffle. I wonder if anyone has sent in a non-qualifying run yet? Ya know, Wick was super-close to her NATCH. Maybe we can finish it from the comfort of our backyard LOL!

Last summer there was a huge discussion about how one couldn't use video to dispute a call or result posted at a trial -- but now we are trusting video alone to award Q's with no judge present? And we are on the "honor system" to trust that people are not running the course 20 times before submitting the video of the one clean run they managed out of all those attempts? Whatever. It is not the same. My dogs can Q every flipping time when running in my back yard. What is the challenge in that?

I realize that you don't like this news, but I love it!!!

I was literally just planning to start VALOR with Dean, but maybe now I'll look into video NADAC instead, since he will occasionally accompany Tessa and me to NADAC trials at select venues that are appropriate for him.

I don't consider it to be less of a challenge. I do both Freestyle and Rally by video (as well as live) and it has not been my experience that it is less of a challenge. The challenges are different, but they are there.

Dean and I train as hard as anyone (In many ways I've trained harder with him than with any of the others). We attend classes weekly, I have made equipment and training aids to use with him at home, and we have been at this for 5 years. It rots beyond expression that shooting ranges near trial venues, summer thunderstorms, other dogs banging teeters (Not in NADAC), a stupid airport next to one trial venue, and fireworks displays (yes, this happened to us once during a Tunnelers run) make it inappropraite for Dean to trial all that often at live events.

I decided just a couple of weeks ago that I want to work on titles with him. His anxiety disorder should not hold us back from something that we would enjoy doing together. Yes, we enjoy playing at class. But we are both ready for something more.

So, video it is!

I may still end up doing VALOR, but I mean to look into the NADAC option, too.

I wouldn't use the video option for Tessa because we love to trial live together. But I love that so many new options are opening for Dean. Wish these options had been around when Speedy was younger. He might have been able to play, too.

ETA: It occurred to me after I posted this that I may need to go with VALOR, after all. The place where I train does not have slatless contacts.

Would you still have to have standardized equipment?
If doing sends how would you prove you were behind the line?
How would you prove your dog was in the contact zone?
How would you be able to time it? How accurate would the times even be?

Idk how realistic or valuable a video of agility could be. No offence!
And oh my that would be a pain in the butt to build a whole course by yourself multiple times. Yikes.

In VALOR, I believe that equipment approved for any of the venues is acceptable. I believe it does have to be regulation for at least one venue, though.

I would imagine that NADAC is going to require NADAC equipment - slatless, rubberized Dogwalk and A-Frame

If doing sends how would you prove you were behind the line?

The line would probably have to show up in some way. Perhaps with the camera set so it is visible, or with cones on either end of it. In Freestyle, we have to mark our ring with gates or cones. That way it can be judged whether or not we stay in the designated area. If you do not, you are NQ'ed. And yes, you can NQ for that.

It would not be hard to set up the line so you could tell on the film whether or not you had crossed it.

How would you prove your dog was in the contact zone?

It would have to be obvious on the film. Camera set so the contacts can be seen. Video courses should be designed to make it so that can happen.

How would you be able to time it? How accurate would the times even be?

I'm not sure what NADAC does with times on this. In VALOR, time is not counted. It is scored on faults (or, hopefully, lack thereof).

It's just a different way of scoring.

Idk how realistic or valuable a video of agility could be. No offence!

I'm not taking offense. It's not going to be for everyone.

It is certainly real. The handler is still handling, the dog is still doing what is being indicated (or not). A course is being run.

It is somewhat different criteria, but all criteria in all sports is made up by people. And all sports exist in different versions that are based on different criteria. Video Agility is not exactly the same as live Agility, but it is still a way to test the team's ability to meet certain criteria.

The value will depend on the handler. Tessa's first Rally Q was through Cyber Rally. Her first Agility Q was at a live trial. Both are of equal value to me. Speedy has six Freestyle titles that he earned at live events. Now we are working on more through a video venue. The video titles will be equal to me in value to the ones he earned live - we are actually doing more serious work now than we were when we prepared for the live competitions. If Dean earns video Agility titles, those will be of equal value to me as his live titles (and he does have a few).

Other people will feel differently, but I do consider titles earned through video and titles earned through live events to be equal in value to me.

And oh my that would be a pain in the butt to build a whole course by yourself multiple times. Yikes.

True. I do Cyber Rally with a friend, so we share the course building and tear down, and good company while we do so! For Video Agility, I would probably plan to film with at least one other person, or possibly more, to share in the task of building and tearing down the course.

It is certainly real. The handler is still handling, the dog is still doing what is being indicated (or not). A course is being run.

If you set up the course, video it, and have an off-course, are you honestly saying you're going to send in that video with the $5 fee for review? Sure, it's still agility. The difference is, at a trial, you have one shot at the course. At the last trial with Wick, I omitted a jump in an otherwise fabulous Masters Jumpers course. In live competition, that's it, you paid your money, that's your run. In video, I'm either going to start again or I just won't submit that run and save the $5. That's the difference.

Nothing like degrading a venue a bit more... Good lord. I think the VT program is a great idea BUT no way do I see where it has any place combining Q's done on video with Q's done in trial. Tell me, truthfully, how many will set up a course, run it once, not Q and not try it again, or again, or again. Everything about running for video versus running in a trial environment is different.

I have a full set of equipment in my field, I have a video, it would be an easy way to supplement my Q ratio. I feel this change has cheapened nadac. Oh great, I just spent 220 on entry fees for this weekend's nadac trial... I am embarrassed.

You do NOT face the same challenges at home that you do at a trial. Because of that, they are NOT equal and should NOT combine for the same titles that the rest of us earn at real trials. And again, while Sharon swears that NADAC folks are "honest," you know there are people running the courses several times. Again, not the same.

Before you get too excited about doing all of this VT stuff, though, Sharon did make a rule to try to make people happy (didn't work for me). You have to get 50% of your points towards titles from real trials. So technically you can't earn all of your titles at home.

What is the point of earning titles at home? Who cares what your dog can do in training? I have oodles of video showing my home training sessions and it clearly shows that my dogs are amazing. Who cares, unless they can replicate that in a trial environment?

To combine Q's earned at home with those earned at a trial is an insult to all I've worked towards. I don't care if they want to offer VT titles to show how those points were earned - but they should NEVER be combined.

Glad you liked USDAA, I went to my first one in almost a year this weekend and was thrilled as the courses really suit my dog. His first trial was a USDAA one and I left walking on air I was so thrilled with his performance, after that we have spend the summer doing NADAC due to trial location and most of you have read about my efforts getting the screaming, yelling and leaping under control, well all we needed was a USDAA course, as the obstacles are closer and there are more turns, he can not get as much speed up and let me get behind with my handling.
I would do USDAA exclusively if there were enough trials within a reasonable distance, it is the style of agility I want to play and my dog has no problems with 26", at the moment I can do about 4 a year, so I guess I am stuck with NADAC. (AKC is not an option for us, and there is less CPE than USDAA)
I agree with the introduction of VT runs being included in the same titles is ridiculous, I have no problem with an exclusive VT program but a trial is very different, the stress on both partners etc etc. I have no interest in Extreme games or dog barrel racing, I think hoops are stupid. I want to play traditional agility and NADAC is losing me.
As an aside no one at a NADAC trial has ever complemented me on my dog, I think they think he is to wild, this weekend I had nationally ranked handlers coming up to me and saying that my dog was extremely talented, as they did the first trial when he was a complete novice and I had no clue how to drive my ferrari. Different styles ..........

Congrats on your USDAA trial! I starting in agility in USDAA about 20 years ago, and there is really no comparison for me. If you q in USDAA, you have earned it! I do AKC as well, but will pick a USDAA show any day. I had not heard that about NADAC, but it really is ridiculous. To say those titles are equivalent, they can't be serious? They are so not equivalent on so many levels. I have done a bit of NADAC, mainly for training experience. It is fun, but I never feel like I have done all the obstacles. And the whole running the courses backwards is still odd to me. But it is laid back which is nice and I love that I can train something if I choose.

The best part of NADAC is training in the ring, and as much as I am frustrated with the current direction, which had started before I began agility, I have really appreciated training in the ring. This last year for me has been about not Qing but we have brilliant contacts, and a solid start line that I credit to being able to train in a trial environment.

If you set up the course, video it, and have an off-course, are you honestly saying you're going to send in that video with the $5 fee for review? Sure, it's still agility. The difference is, at a trial, you have one shot at the course.

Of course not. That is one of the obvious differences between criteria for video events and live events.

Still, there are no sure things. A friend of mine submitted a Cyber Rally video that contained an error that neither of us caught and the dog was NQ'ed for it. Those things can happen even on video.

Regardless, the criteria for all dog sport events is completely arbitrary. Some venues penalize "refusals" and others do not - it's a difference. Some fault dropped bars and weaves differently - another difference. With video, you can choose not to submit a run with an obvious error - yet another difference.

Have you ever sent in an NQ run to any of your video venues?

Yes. In our last WCFO video competition, I sent Speedy's performance even though I knew that his moves behind me would be a judgment call on the part of the judges. Out of three judges, one gave us a qualifying score and two did not. The average resulted in an NQ.

And the brace routine I sent in of Speedy and Dean last spring NQ'ed. Again, I knew it would be a judgment call because their level of focus was not equal. In that case, two out of the three judges would have qualified it, but the one that didn't gave us a score so low that the average was an NQ.

It is actually much, much easier to qualify in live competition.

None of Dean's Cyber Rally runs have NQ'ed, but I have sent in a couple where I knew there was a judgment call. And, as I mentioned above, my friend NQ'ed with an error that both she and I completely missed. We would have known it was a problem had we seen it, but neither of us did. The judge caught it, though.